Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Re: Just how real is violence? And where does Aikido stands in all of this?

"Liberal as Hell" etc ...are you trying to engage in conversation or are you trolling?

Quote:

Scott Harrington wrote:

To: Dalaran1991

I hope you continue to have a peaceful life - odds are against it. You may have an 'incident' at a family get together, you may have something stolen from you on the subway, you may have on-line fraud steal money from you, you may accidentally walk into a 7-11 while it is being robbed (this has always been my biggest fear - so unpredictable.) You may also not see the violence around you because you are 1) still young or 2) liberal as hell or unfortunately 3) stupid (I don't believe that in your case but it does cover some people.)

As to Steve Pinker saying violence is on the down swing - he is liberal as hell. Great scientist (I have his book, "How the Mind Works") but his latest book must have been written to a) stroke his liberal beliefs and 2) pay for a new vacation house. Went to a talk by Grossman, author of "On Killing" where he uses statistics (kinda like Pinker) to show violence is on a massive upswing because modern medicine is keeping people alive who would have been on the mortality list. When 500,000 people die in Africa from machete it is not a less violent Earth. Evolutionists talks about "punctuated equilibrium" - well nukes are just waiting to fill in the missing numbers on Pinker's graphs. Or Sarin gas in Syria.

As to martial arts and violence, particularly Daito ryu, everybody forgets that a large portion of the curriculum was police based training (see the individual names of the "Soden" books through Hisa) which were used to reduce or restrain violent offenders.

Even Ueshiba didn't come to a more philosophical outlook till Japan was bombed, their carriers sunk at Midway (insuring an eventual defeat in the war) and he moved to Iwama.

Violence is like fire, it must be contained or it runs wild. One way to contain it is to meet it headlong and change it like Lynn says. One of my favorite movies is "Amazing Grace" where by sheer will and hard work, England's involvement (and eventually most of the whole world) in the slave trade was ended. Not perfect (look at American Civil War), not forever (Egypt removes prohibition of slavery from new constitution), not a liberal pipe dream on a graph.

Re: Just how real is violence? And where does Aikido stands in all of this?

Quote:

Brad Edwards wrote:

I believe humans naturally avoid violence when it is an option, and one of the first world's primary offerings is options. But all it would take to elevate the level of desperation in the first world is the elimination of a few options.

Here's a kind of related story that may have some meaning for those of you who have been up our way. The People's Pint in Greenfield MA, our beloved after-dojo bar, was burglarized recently. A safe was stolen containing their cash and check receipts (which is most of what they have; they only recently started accepting cards, and most of their regulars pay cash out of habit). Also stolen was the cash donations that patrons had made to the Franklin County Community Meals program (also known as Share the Bounty). When I heard the news, I thought, "Who does that?" and immediately realized that the thief was almost certainly someone who perceived that they had needs and no other/better way to meet them than to steal. The perception (and perhaps the reality) was of a lack of options; the result was an antisocial act. Here in the first world, we can have options side by side with lack of options; we can also have different perceptions of the same reality -- depending on which side you fall on, the result is optimism or desperation. I'm reminded of a dojo-mate whose home and car were badly damaged by Tropical Storm Irene, who lost a lot, but who got the help and resources needed to get by and slowly put things back together, who said, "Now we know what it is to be rich."

Re: Just how real is violence? And where does Aikido stands in all of this?

Quote:

Gordon Young wrote:

"Liberal as Hell" etc ...are you trying to engage in conversation or are you trolling?

So, if someone describes a person as "Conservative as Hell", then it's trolling, too? How about if they describe someone as "Democrat as Hell"? Is that trolling?

Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, all describe people's views. In fact, they are but generalities as you can have a Liberal Republican and a Conservative Democrat. Far Right, Far Left, Communist, Marxist, etc are also general adjectives describing people's views and beliefs.

Scott wasn't trolling. Stating his opinion, yes. It's amazing, but I find that if you're tolerant of others, you can read things like that without getting upset. For example, Marc Abrams and I have some very different views, but we get along great. Or Janet Rosen and I.

Re: Just how real is violence? And where does Aikido stands in all of this?

Quote:

Mark Murray wrote:

So, if someone describes a person as "Conservative as Hell", then it's trolling, too? How about if they describe someone as "Democrat as Hell"? Is that trolling?

Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, all describe people's views. In fact, they are but generalities as you can have a Liberal Republican and a Conservative Democrat. Far Right, Far Left, Communist, Marxist, etc are also general adjectives describing people's views and beliefs.

Scott wasn't trolling. Stating his opinion, yes. It's amazing, but I find that if you're tolerant of others, you can read things like that without getting upset. For example, Marc Abrams and I have some very different views, but we get along great. Or Janet Rosen and I.

Tolerance. It's not just for conservatives anymore.

Mark

Yes, if someone slaps a "conservative as hell" label on a person's point of view as an excuse for immediate dismissal of the point of view and the person, it is trolling, it is just as prejudicial and inflammatory as Scott's post. Stating an opinion is fine and dandy. Trying to prop up an opinion with political name calling is not as nifty.

If Scott had said "I disagree with Pinker's data" or "I think Mr. Pinker has misinterpreted the information he quotes in his book" without adding in the comments about liberals, we could have a nice, productive discussion. Instead, it has been shown that the foundation of his argument is based on his perception of the author's political stance rather than the work itself. Is it then so very unreasonable to believe that Scott may summarily dismiss my participation in further discussion, since I am generally liberal in my thought? What then would he do when he found out that I am also homosexual? Should I wear a sign that says "AT LEAST I'M WHITE!" so that I can perhaps gain some respect for my opinion about an issue that I believe has very little to do with politics, sexuality, or race? Am I making a reasonable, conservative even, assumption, or am I falling into reductio ad absurdum?

Using externalities to bolster an opinion is poor argumentation no matter who is doing it. Clearly ad hominem, fallacious.

Re: Just how real is violence? And where does Aikido stands in all of this?

Krystal, you don't understand Scott's point. As the last election showed, reality has a liberal bias--so when Scott says Pinker is "liberal as hell" he is really complementing the man as accurate and trustworthy. Please try to keep up.

Re: Just how real is violence? And where does Aikido stands in all of this?

Hi Mark, I'm not assuming that Scott is trolling, I'm asking him. I think it's a fair question, based on his post.

"Liberal as Hell" is not the problem. The problem is that there are multiple occurrences of that phrase, and others, in a context that is generally derisive.

I disagree with Scott's conclusions, but I recognize that it's grey area, and I'm interested in discussing it with other open-minded people. Scott's raises interesting points... but his tone (e.g. word choice) in this post seems to indicate that he's pretty judgmental about people who don't agree with him. If he continues in such a tone, then I'm not interested in talking with him. I'm still interested in the ideas...but I'm not interested in participating in a conversation where people are called stupid.

(Liberals as a bad as conservatives in this regard - and in many places both sides seem to be competing to out-do one-another in general nastiness. I can't do much about that in most places, but I hate to see it happen on Aikiweb.)

Quote:

Mark Murray wrote:

So, if someone describes a person as "Conservative as Hell", then it's trolling, too? How about if they describe someone as "Democrat as Hell"? Is that trolling?

Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, all describe people's views. In fact, they are but generalities as you can have a Liberal Republican and a Conservative Democrat. Far Right, Far Left, Communist, Marxist, etc are also general adjectives describing people's views and beliefs.

Scott wasn't trolling. Stating his opinion, yes. It's amazing, but I find that if you're tolerant of others, you can read things like that without getting upset. For example, Marc Abrams and I have some very different views, but we get along great. Or Janet Rosen and I.

Re: Just how real is violence? And where does Aikido stands in all of this?

Quote:

Krystal Locke wrote:

Yes, if someone slaps a "conservative as hell" label on a person's point of view as an excuse for immediate dismissal of the point of view and the person, it is trolling, it is just as prejudicial and inflammatory as Scott's post. Stating an opinion is fine and dandy. Trying to prop up an opinion with political name calling is not as nifty.

If Scott had said "I disagree with Pinker's data" or "I think Mr. Pinker has misinterpreted the information he quotes in his book" without adding in the comments about liberals, we could have a nice, productive discussion. Instead, it has been shown that the foundation of his argument is based on his perception of the author's political stance rather than the work itself. Is it then so very unreasonable to believe that Scott may summarily dismiss my participation in further discussion, since I am generally liberal in my thought? What then would he do when he found out that I am also homosexual? Should I wear a sign that says "AT LEAST I'M WHITE!" so that I can perhaps gain some respect for my opinion about an issue that I believe has very little to do with politics, sexuality, or race?

Oh, I wouldn't go around, blasting out the info that you're white, btw. You'll probably get major retaliation for it. Best to go with the other two because you'll be treated better. I find that there are a ton of things that I am barred/banned/removed from because I'm a white male. Heck, if I go by most commercials, I couldn't find my rear from a hole in the ground and am too stupid to function on my own. Toss in that I'm from West Virginia and wow, I have absolutely no chance at functioning in Society.

So, when someone says, oh just a dumb hick, it's nothing to me. First, there are some dumb hicks. Second, I'm not one of them. Third, it's a stereotype and using it means the person is either generalizing, doesn't understand the culture, or is really referring to one of those dumb hicks. Truth is a hard pill to swallow.

BTW, for those wondering, yes, the family tree in WV does just go straight up.

Quote:

Krystal Locke wrote:

Am I making a reasonable, conservative even, assumption, or am I falling into reductio ad absurdum?

Using externalities to bolster an opinion is poor argumentation no matter who is doing it. Clearly ad hominem, fallacious.

You were until you used "conservative even". Remember, we shouldn't use those labels to bolster an opinion.

Quote:

Gordon Young wrote:

(Liberals as a bad as conservatives in this regard - and in many places both sides seem to be competing to out-do one-another in general nastiness. I can't do much about that in most places, but I hate to see it happen on Aikiweb.)

Re: Just how real is violence? And where does Aikido stands in all of this?

Quote:

Mark Murray wrote:

Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, all describe people's views. In fact, they are but generalities as you can have a Liberal Republican and a Conservative Democrat. Far Right, Far Left, Communist, Marxist, etc are also general adjectives describing people's views and beliefs.....

Mark

I am an independent liberal conservative extremist - I am so full of opposites I must be a natural for the dual opposing spirals of Aiki - either that or I need thereby; maybe both

IMO, the use of stereotypes and generalizations is an extremely limiting factor that is guaranteed to keep you in the dark about the true things in life

Human nature is such that we look for categories and labels by which we can recognize and identify ourselves and each other. It starts with infants learning to discern "self" from "non-self" and adds layers from there. Even Koko the gorilla (trained in a form of American Sign Language) was able to identify herself as "Koko fine gorilla."

I think that if we didn't have words and terms for these things, we would still make intuitive distinctions based on our feelings and self-perceptions, compared to our perceptions of where others are coming from.

Re: Just how real is violence? And where does Aikido stands in all of this?

Quote:

Cady Goldfield wrote:

"

I think that if we didn't have words and terms for these things, we would still make intuitive distinctions based on our feelings and self-perceptions, compared to our perceptions of where others are coming from.

That is all true - but the hard part is to recognize that for what it is and to establish a frame of mind that allows for other perceptions instead of summarily dismissing things because that don't match our initial perceptions of truth to us.

Re: Just how real is violence? And where does Aikido stands in all of this?

Quote:

Long Trinh wrote:

Greetings all,

I'm still young (21 years old) so I have to say beforehand I don't have a lot of real life experience in violence yet, that's why I want to ask about the reality of violence.

I love Aikido and yes in training we like to think "oh yes if we get attack we will do this and that", but seriously how often do you get into a fight that you can not foresee or back down from?

I live in Richmond where there is a decent crime rates and spent 5 months in Paris, a huge city that can get quite chaotic. I generally find that most people are really nice, and the people who are not, well I did not get myself in a situation where I have to fight.

Unless you do things like walking alone in the Bronx at midnight, get really drunk and start chatting up someone's girlfriend, or stare at somebody on the street (in all of these cases frankly you are messing up and you got it coming), just how likely is it that somebody is just gonna walk up and tries to beat us up?

There are times when shady people push and threaten me in the subway, I simply move away to a more crowded area and don't say anything or look back at them. Most of the time they leave me alone. In the clubs you have the bouncers if something goes wrong. And the fact that it's modern day, you can't kill someone without having the police up your butt, I think it's pretty safe to live.

But again I might simply been lucky enough that I haven't seen violence directed against me. I hear about talk of violence all the time though. Do you think it's possible to avoid violence altogether if we are a bit careful, which is the goal of aikido anyway?

Of course, if you work in a job that faces danger on a regular basis then that changes the story.

I posted on the other thread, so I guess I'll also post here. Great questions and I have bolded a couple of statements to address specifically, then we'll see how things go...

I believe the world is no less dangerous than it has been. We have different hazards now, but I don't see people waving the "We Have World Peace" flag yet.

First, if you are in a fight, then your opportunity to avoid the fight has passed and you should concentrate on fighting. If you were able to foresee the confrontation or de-escalate the confrontation those would be my first 2 options. However, sometimes the best solution is to deal with the problem and fighting is the best option.

When you look at animals, we are pretty much the only specifies that will deny danger exists. Animals will identify danger and follow a flight or fight response; we look away. This response is largely the result of socialization and a dependency upon a greater entity to influence behavior (namely laws).

Second, aikido does not avoid anything. I take issue with this point because I believe the philosophy of aikido is centered upon understanding confrontation and the path to resolution. I think it prudent behavior to be vigilant in our lives. I think it prudent behavior to curtail risks interacting with people. I think we are fortunate each day our prudence pays off. I think the modern entitlement ideology begs us to embrace the universal understanding that we will not be harmed. As the other thread discussed, we write books advocating this ideology. When we are harmed, we use excusatory rhetoric to project cause anywhere but as a direct challenge to that universal belief.

The reality is that danger exists. It may be the pick-pocket in the subway, the burglar interrupted during his robbery, or the investment banker managing your retirement. Violence is the manner in which a type of danger is acted. Don't give it more power over your life than that.

Re: Just how real is violence? And where does Aikido stands in all of this?

[quote=Long Trinh;320235]Greetings all,

Unless you do things like walking alone in the Bronx at midnight, get really drunk and start chatting up someone's girlfriend, or stare at somebody on the street (in all of these cases frankly you are messing up and you got it coming), [quote]

You have it coming? This is rediculous! Since when is it ok to physically attack someone for any of the reasons you listed? You can't really mean this.

Re: Just how real is violence? And where does Aikido stands in all of this?

[quote=Lyle Laizure;320645][quote=Long Trinh;320235]Greetings all,

Unless you do things like walking alone in the Bronx at midnight, get really drunk and start chatting up someone's girlfriend, or stare at somebody on the street (in all of these cases frankly you are messing up and you got it coming),

Quote:

You have it coming? This is rediculous! Since when is it ok to physically attack someone for any of the reasons you listed? You can't really mean this.

It may not be OK to attack for the cited reasons, but it does happen. "What the FZZK you lookin' at M***** F*****!!!" One may not DESERVE to be attacked, but that doesn't matter to the territorial wanker who's "hood" includes the patch of sidewalk one happens to be walking on in the attempt to get from point a to point b..

Re: Just how real is violence? And where does Aikido stands in all of this?

Quote:

Lyle Laizure wrote:

You have it coming? This is rediculous! Since when is it ok to physically attack someone for any of the reasons you listed? You can't really mean this.

Those are aggressive acts. If you act aggressively toward someone you can generally expect them to act aggressively toward you. Behavior correction and attitude adjustments come in many forms, some physical.

Re: Just how real is violence? And where does Aikido stands in all of this?

Quote:

Brian Beach wrote:

Those are aggressive acts. If you act aggressively toward someone you can generally expect them to act aggressively toward you. Behavior correction and attitude adjustments come in many forms, some physical.

What is aggressive about walking outside anywhere at midnight? It may be an unfortunately unfortunate choice or condition, but it isn't aggressive. Getting drunk, losing awareness and talking to an attached woman is not an aggressive act, even if it is three kinds of dumb. Why should looking at another human be met with a fist? It isn't like our IP is good enough to hit someone with a glance.

Those actions may be cause for a conversation, not a conflict. I think that humans are complex animals, we have a huge capacity for violence and a brain that cannot always figure out when the violence is appropriate.

Re: Just how real is violence? And where does Aikido stands in all of this?

Quote:

Walter Martindale wrote:

It may not be OK to attack for the cited reasons, but it does happen. "What the FZZK you lookin' at M***** F*****!!!"

exactly what happend to me. years ago i was walking in a small town, didn't pay attention to things around me. i was looking down. i happened to look up as this man approach. he started to scream at me for looking at him and acted agressively. i circled a bit wider and kept my distance but sill looked at him. he walked off and still screamed loudly. learned a lesson on situational awareness.

Re: Just how real is violence? And where does Aikido stands in all of this?

Quote:

Krystal Locke wrote:

What is aggressive about walking outside anywhere at midnight? It may be an unfortunately unfortunate choice or condition, but it isn't aggressive. Getting drunk, losing awareness and talking to an attached woman is not an aggressive act, even if it is three kinds of dumb. Why should looking at another human be met with a fist? It isn't like our IP is good enough to hit someone with a glance.

Those actions may be cause for a conversation, not a conflict. I think that humans are complex animals, we have a huge capacity for violence and a brain that cannot always figure out when the violence is appropriate.

You're strawmanning it. Walking down the street I agree but drunkenly chatting up someone's girlfriend and staring at someone are aggressive acts. I agree that conversation should proceed but some people lack the communication skills.

What I was reacting to was the expectation of bodily safety regardless of your actions. There is a civil expectation of boundaries. If you willing venture outside those boundaries it is an aggressive act. If you get drunk (your choice) and chat up someones girlfriend (your choice) and they or the girlfriend get angry about it, you created the situation not them. How they react is on them but you can't expect them to act civilly when you are acting stupid and aggressive.

You can hug a stranger, it can be an act of love, but it's still an aggressive act of love. They can react in a myriad of ways but you still created the situation.

Re: Just how real is violence? And where does Aikido stands in all of this?

Quote:

Lyle Laizure wrote:

Quote:

Long Trinh wrote:

Greetings all,

Unless you do things like walking alone in the Bronx at midnight, get really drunk and start chatting up someone's girlfriend, or stare at somebody on the street (in all of these cases frankly you are messing up and you got it coming),

You have it coming? This is rediculous! Since when is it ok to physically attack someone for any of the reasons you listed? You can't really mean this.

Yeah, I kinda ignored this part earlier, but since it has come up...

There are few scenarios when physical conflict is the correct solution, either on the initiating end or the receiving end. No one should have "anything coming" for most decisions; that said, as I posted earlier you should reduce your chances for...miscommunication.

As a later post comments, we have some control over the situations in which we place ourselves. Sometimes not as much as we'd like, but there you go. I do not excuse poor behavior. If a guy is really intent up picking a fight because you looked at him or talked to his girl, he is gonna pick a fight - we are just haggling over the "why". We need to recognize the intent and look past the why. Because if he cannot find a reason to fight with you, he'll find it with the next guy.

Quote:

There is a civil expectation of boundaries.

Not necessarily. I think this is a major problem with some of the violence in the US. People pick fights because they think they will [successfully] get away with it. Your actions may facilitate their decision-making process, but they are considering whether or not it is "worth it" to pick a fight with you. I think the above example of intimidation is not uncommon in urban environments and clearly falls outside the realm of "civil".

We intimidate because we can. It advances our personal status. Wanna know why I am chatting your girlfriend? Because I am better than you. Wanna know why I am staring you down? Because I am higher status than you. Wanna know why I am stealing from you? Because I want your money. These are not "civil" behaviors, but they are primal behaviors. Don't excuse the behavior, but recognize it for what it is...

Re: Just how real is violence? And where does Aikido stands in all of this?

Quote:

Jon Reading wrote:

Not necessarily. I think this is a major problem with some of the violence in the US. People pick fights because they think they will [successfully] get away with it. Your actions may facilitate their decision-making process, but they are considering whether or not it is "worth it" to pick a fight with you. I think the above example of intimidation is not uncommon in urban environments and clearly falls outside the realm of "civil".

We intimidate because we can. It advances our personal status. Wanna know why I am chatting your girlfriend? Because I am better than you. Wanna know why I am staring you down? Because I am higher status than you. Wanna know why I am stealing from you? Because I want your money. These are not "civil" behaviors, but they are primal behaviors. Don't excuse the behavior, but recognize it for what it is...

I agree - That's why I labeled them as aggressive. By engaging in those acts you are choosing to go outside the civil norms and not respecting the boundaries. If you go outside the boundaries you can't be surprised when the person you are engaging also go outside the boundaries. You called them out there.

"Why are those hornets so angry and following me? All I did was tap at their nest with a stick"

Re: Just how real is violence? And where does Aikido stands in all of this?

[quote=Walter Martindale;320650][quote=Lyle Laizure;320645]

Quote:

Long Trinh wrote:

Greetings all,

Unless you do things like walking alone in the Bronx at midnight, get really drunk and start chatting up someone's girlfriend, or stare at somebody on the street (in all of these cases frankly you are messing up and you got it coming),

It may not be OK to attack for the cited reasons, but it does happen. "What the FZZK you lookin' at M***** F*****!!!" One may not DESERVE to be attacked, but that doesn't matter to the territorial wanker who's "hood" includes the patch of sidewalk one happens to be walking on in the attempt to get from point a to point b..

*ridiculous

Movie: The Unforgiven
Gene Hackman's character upon being shot by Clint Eastwood's, " I don't deserve this , I was building a house"
Clint Eastwood's reply, "It aint got nothing to do with deserve".
As having lived in the "big bad city" , Brooklyn not the Bronx by the way, there are things that you can do to put you in a bad way in a hurry, or a little situational awareness goes a long way. It has been my experience that trouble finds those ignoring even the most basic situational awareness. But the question also begging to be asked, since I am male and raised to believe in the role of the male as the protector in a relationship is , "am I? "(too much hesitation and indecision have resulted in the questioning of the male traditional roles in this society) or even better, "how long should good men ignore evil?" , until its in your backyard(at which point you are caught off guard and disadvantaged).
So now you have a highly stressful situation(fight or flight ) which you train all your life(some people) to resolve and control because we are not chimpanzees, too which we have added layers of additional doubts about liability, sensibilities, racial identifies, drug use (legal and illegal), people already operating outside the law most of their lives.
I dont think today there is any doubt that violence is real. Do we want to have an unconditioned knee jerk reaction or a conditioned response to it?

￼￼￼￼￼￼A day will dawn when you will yourself laugh at your effort. That which is on the day of laughter is also now.
Ramana Maharishi

Re: Just how real is violence? And where does Aikido stands in all of this?

Some of these posts are really terrible. This attitude of "he deseves what he gets" is appauling. Just because a person makes a poor decision about where they choose to walk, who they talk to or who they look at doesn't mean they deserve any kind of physical correction. Does the same apply to the woman who's out and is raped? The guy's defense is he could tell by the way she was dressed that she wanted it. Is that ok? Where do you folks draw the line? No one, no one (in any of these scenarios) deserves to be physically or even verbally assaulted. First of all it is against the law. Secondly, what kind of moral character do you have if you believe that it is ok to assault someone for these reasons. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I am saything that it is WRONG!

Re: Just how real is violence? And where does Aikido stands in all of this?

Quote:

Lyle Laizure wrote:

Some of these posts are really terrible. This attitude of "he deseves what he gets" is appauling. Just because a person makes a poor decision about where they choose to walk, who they talk to or who they look at doesn't mean they deserve any kind of physical correction. Does the same apply to the woman who's out and is raped? The guy's defense is he could tell by the way she was dressed that she wanted it. Is that ok? Where do you folks draw the line? No one, no one (in any of these scenarios) deserves to be physically or even verbally assaulted. First of all it is against the law. Secondly, what kind of moral character do you have if you believe that it is ok to assault someone for these reasons. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I am saything that it is WRONG!

I don't think there's much in the discussion that implies it's OK to be assaultive for any of the above reasons. It happens, but it's not "right"... And yes, assault is against the law. There are a few things that can't be legislated.. Sanity for one, "law-abidingness", for another..

Re: Just how real is violence? And where does Aikido stands in all of this?

Quote:

Lyle Laizure wrote:

Some of these posts are really terrible. This attitude of "he deseves what he gets" is appauling. Just because a person makes a poor decision about where they choose to walk, who they talk to or who they look at doesn't mean they deserve any kind of physical correction. Does the same apply to the woman who's out and is raped? The guy's defense is he could tell by the way she was dressed that she wanted it. Is that ok? Where do you folks draw the line? No one, no one (in any of these scenarios) deserves to be physically or even verbally assaulted. First of all it is against the law. Secondly, what kind of moral character do you have if you believe that it is ok to assault someone for these reasons. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I am saything that it is WRONG!

I was pointing out the causal relationship. If you act like an asshole people are going to act accordingly. If you poke a bear and he attacks you there is a causal relationship. They are not innocent in the interaction. Can the situation be handled better? - sure. Should you be shocked when it's not? - no. Staring people down is an aggressive act. If you act aggressively toward someone they will act aggressively towards you. If you don't regulate your own behavior eventually someone will regulate it for you.